It does seem a strange policy but the hysteria around it is over the top. I heard a typical ABC talkback caller claiming it was just a typical LNP policy to support the "poor" homeowners in Toorak and Vaucluse. The goose neglected to mention that the grant is means tested and if you earn more than $200K per year (for a couple) then you are not eligible for the grant.
There ain't no homeowners in Toorak and Vaucluse earning less than $200K per year.
There are plenty of retirees or semi-retirees on less than that, and others who pay themselves a minimal wage while their business is raking in the cash. There could be people putting in a new wing entirely funded by franking credits and this new *smile*.
Yeh the tests/thresholds are aligned with the first home loan deposit scheme. Not sure it is the wealthy that it is aimed at with the thresholds of income and home valuation. Definitely aimed at the middle class, although If you are a young single/couple looking to buy apparently the first owner schemes operate in conjunction with each other. So in Victoria you could be eligible for the national first home loan deposit scheme (not pay lenders mortgage insurance) the $10K first home owners grant and stamp duty exemption as well this $25K home builders grant. It could get a young single/couple into their first home 5-10 years before they normally would.
If it helps keep businesses going and apprentices employed etc and is only one of a number of measures is it all bad?
As to being able to afford a $150K reno not many would fund it without borrowing so affordability would be wrapped up in your level of debt. With home loan rates available at under 3% funding $150K over a 25 year mortgage equates to around $700/month in extra payments. As I understand it you get the $25,000 paid to you which would fund over 3 years of the payments.
Builders and tradies have been just about the least affected group by covid. They have more work than they know what to do with. The expected effect on GDP has been rounded to zero.
On borrowing, you're right. It basically amounts to more taxpayer money being handed over to the banks.
Maybe you are onto something. Some articles around the benefits of giving cash directly to the poor.
While researching my book Where Am I Giving: A Global Adventure Exploring How to Use Your Gifts and Talents to Make a Difference, in which I explored various types of giving around the world, I traveled to Kenya to see GiveDirectly’s work firsthand.
www.thelifeyoucansave.org.au
Forget food aid, cows and job training. An unprecedented 12-year experiment in Kenya tests the power of cash.
www.npr.org
Evidence around the world suggests that sending money to those who need it, without conditions, works.
www.theatlantic.com
Cash transfers are not merely a way to help poor families climb out of poverty; rather, they are a tool for fostering longer-term social mobility.
unu.edu
There is honour in work, and self-esteem for the worker. I would like to see stimulus money spent in a jobs guarantee. There are enough infrastructure projects that need doing that will set us up for decades down the track, that could ensure anyone who wants a job will have one, for years. That's how you grow a country and an economy.
On poor people having money, if it wasn't the most self-evidently obvious truth that less poverty equals less crime, there are countless studies to back it up. That's what irks me with the right - it would be far cheaper and make for a safer society if we ensured everyone has a roof over their heads and food to eat. But instead they resent helping the less fortunate - while trumpeting their 'Christianity' and 'family values' - in favour of punitive measures and putting people in prison, where they learn to become better/more hardened criminals, and the doom spiral continues. It is so arse-about and self-defeating.